The Commission
will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may
choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to
another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1. 2010.0758D
(A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

454 GREENWICH STREET
-north side
between Grant Avenue and Telegraph Hill Boulevard; Lot 010 in Assessor’s Block
0078 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application
No. 2008.06.16.4558, proposing to construct a horizontal addition with a roof
deck to the existing partial third floor of the one-unit residential building
within the RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X
Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and
approve

(Proposed for Continuance to February 3, 2011)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore and Sugaya

2a. 2010.0423CV
(C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

140 9TH
STREET
- west side between Mission and Howards Streets; Lot 005 of Assessor’s Block
3509 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning
Code Sections 303 and 816.15 to convert the existing building into an arts
complex including two dwelling units, eight group housing units, and artist
studio and gallery space within the SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential)
Zoning District, Western SoMa Special Use District, and 50-X Height and Bulk
District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2011)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore and Sugaya

2b. 2010.0423CV
(C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

140 9TH STREET - west side
between Mission and Howards Streets; Lot 005 of Assessor’s Block 3509 -
Request for Variances, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134, 135, and 151
for rear yard, open space, and parking requirements for two dwelling units and
eight group housing units. The project proposes to convert the existing building
into an arts complex including two dwelling units, eight group housing units,
and artist studio and gallery space within the SLR (Service/Light
Industrial/Residential) Zoning District, Western SoMa Special Use District, and
50-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2011)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore and Sugaya

3. 2008.0081E
(D. JAIN: (415) 575-9051)

950 Mason Street – Fairmont Hotel Project - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report -
The project site is located at 950 Mason Street (Assessor’s Block 0244, Lot
001). The proposed project includes: 1) renovation of portions of the landmark
1906 Fairmont Hotel building (City Landmark # 185), including consolidation of
up to 60 hotel rooms; 2) reconfiguration of some existing hotel uses; 3)
demolition of the 1961 23-story Fairmont Hotel tower above the five-story
podium; and 4) construction of a new 160–unit, 26-story residential tower and
five-story midrise residential component, both above a five-story podium, on the
site of the existing hotel tower and podium (proposed to be demolished). The
proposed project would include below-grade parking for about 350 vehicles. The
113,400-square-foot project site is located in an RM-4 (Residential Mixed-High
Density) Use District and the Nob Hill Special Use District (SUD), and in 200-E,
300-E and 320-E Height and Bulk Districts. The proposed project would require
Conditional Use (CU) authorization for height and bulk and for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) including exceptions to the 25 percent rear yard requirement,
as well as require Planning Commission approval under the “Large Tourist Hotel
Conversion Ordinance,” Administrative Code 41F.3(f), among other approvals. The
proposed exterior changes to the historic 1906 Fairmont Hotel building would
also require a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation
Commission. The Draft EIR found that implementation of the proposed project
would result in a significant unavoidable environmental impact on cultural
resources, related to demolition of the Tonga Room, which has been identified as
a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

NOTE: The
action for this item falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission.

950 MASON STREET -
Bound by Mason, Powell, Sacramento, and California Streets, Lot 001; Assessor’s
Block 0244. Adoption of California Environmental Quality Act Findings -
The Project includes: 1) renovation of portions of the landmark 1906 Fairmont
Hotel building (City Landmark # 185), including consolidation of up to 60 hotel
rooms; 2) reconfiguration of some existing hotel uses; 3) demolition of the 1961
23-story Fairmont Hotel tower above the five-story podium; and 4) construction
of a new 160–unit, 26-story residential tower and five-story midrise residential
component, both above a five-story podium, on the site of the existing hotel
tower and podium (proposed to be demolished). The proposed project would include
below-grade parking for about 350 vehicles. The CEQA Findings include a
statement of overriding benefits and a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program (MMRP) associated with approving the proposed 950 Mason Street Project.
They include a rationale for rejecting alternatives identified in the EIR, and a
statement of overriding considerations that lists technical, social and economic
reasons for approving the proposed project despite identified significant,
adverse environmental impacts.

NOTE: The
action for this item falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA Findings Motion

(Proposed for Continuance to April 14, 2011)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Items 4a-4d did not need to be
continued as they will be re-noticed prior the April 14th hearing
date.

950 MASON STREET - bound by
Mason, Powell, Sacramento, and California Streets, Lot 001; Assessor’s Block
0244 - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior
rehabilitation of portions of the California Street elevation; the restoration
and the rehabilitation of the exterior of the building at the location of the
Venetian Room (east elevation); seismic work as it relates to the exterior of
the historic building at the location of the new podium, mid-rise component, and
tower; removal of the existing connections that lead from the historic portion
of the hotel to the 1961 podium and tower and the introduction of new
connections; and exterior alterations to a loading dock on the Sacramento Street
elevation. A portion of the lot is City Landmark No. 185, the Fairmont Hotel.
The subject building is located at 950 Mason Street, within the Nob Hill Special
Use District, and a 200-E-2/300-E-2/320-E Height and Bulk District.

NOTE: The
action for this item falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Historic
Preservation Commission

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to April 14, 2011)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Items 4a-4d did not need to be
continued as they will be re-noticed prior the April 14th hearing
date.

950 MASON STREET - bound by
Mason, Powell, Sacramento, and California Streets, Lot 001; Assessor’s Block
0244 - Request for Authorization for the conversion and consolidation of
up to 286 tourist hotel rooms pursuant to the Large Tourist Hotel Conversion
Ordinance, Chapter 41f of the Administrative Code. A portion of the lot is City
Landmark No. 185, the Fairmont Hotel. The subject building is located at 950
Mason Street, Lot 0244 in Assessor's Block 001, within the Nob Hill Special Use
District, and a 200-E-2/300-E-2/320-E Height and Bulk District.

NOTE: The
action for this item falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to April 14, 2011)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Items 4a-4d did not need to be
continued as they will be re-noticed prior the April 14th hearing
date.

950 MASON STREET - bound by
Mason, Powell, Sacramento, and California Streets, Lot 001; Assessor’s Block
0244 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit
Development and the consolidation and conversion of tourist hotel rooms to
residential pursuant to the Large Tourist Hotel Conversion Ordinance, and
pursuant to sections 263.5, 238, 303, 304, of the Planning Code, with specific
modifications to Planning Code regulations related to Height & Bulk, Rear Yard,
and Permitted Obstructions with respect to a proposal to demolish the existing
1961 podium and tower structure and remove up to 226 and consolidate up to 60
tourist hotel rooms and construct a new 26-story and a 5-story mid-rise
component that are located on a 5-story podium structure (for a total height of
317-feet excluding mechanical appurtenances) with up to 160 residential units,
the addition of up to 185 off-street parking spaces (for a total of 350
independently-accessible off-street spaces). A portion of the lot is City
Landmark No. 185, the Fairmont Hotel. The subject building is located at 950
Mason Street, Lot 0244 in Assessor's Block 001, within the Nob Hill Special Use
District, and a 200-E-2/300-E-2/320-E Height and Bulk District.

NOTE: The
action for this item falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to April 14, 2011)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Items 4a-4d did not need to be
continued as they will be re-noticed prior the April 14th hearing
date.

B.
COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning
Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected
at the first Regular Meeting of the Commission held on or after the 15th day of
January of each year, or at a subsequent meeting, the date which shall be fixed
by the commission at the first Regular Meeting on or after the 15th day of
January each year.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Christina Olague elected president

Ron Miguel elected
vice-president

AYES: Antonini, Fung, Moore, Miguel, Olague, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

6.Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Sugaya:

At last Thursdays’
hearing, I made a comment regarding TipTop Market, that was -- let me put it in
context. Commissioner Borden was in the process of saying what her feelings were
about the project, and in summing up, she made a comment that there might be
other opportunities to make money at the store, something else could be sold in
the store, and she mentioned perhaps clothing, and I think kind of shrug it off
as something that probably was not possible. In that context, I made a comment,
which I learned on Monday from Supervisor Kim was taken as being very
insensitive to the Tenderloin Community, and for that, I' m very, very sorry. It
was not meant to be taken in that regard, and the comment was at that time
directed to the project sponsor of TipTop Market, who is seeking a conditional
use permit, so it was not intended to be addressed to the larger community, but
it has been taken that way. Subsequently, I have talked to the owner of the
market -- the tiptop market, to make sure that what I said was not offensive to
him. He assured me that it was not, and he volunteered to come here today if
needed, but I told him I did not think that was necessary and that I think
people can take my word that he did not have a problem. I also then subsequently
called and talked to Mr. Buckley at the central city collaborative. He did say
that members of the collaborative were interested in having a meeting with me,
and we are currently in the process of setting that up, which I assume will be
fairly shortly. To the greater community and especially the Tenderloin community
and to Supervisor Kim, I do truly apologize for making that comment.

Commissioner Antonini:

Part of our general
correspondence was a letter from the Jones Hall Law Firm, I believe directed to
Michael Yarney, January 21, 2011, which is a restatement of infrastructure –
proposed infrastructure refinancing, I believe it is available online, but I
would like to see if we can get a hard copy of that. I think there was just the
one copy. I do not remember receiving a is for today. I think that is an
important issue and one I would like to look at a little bit more, It is a
fairly long document to print out. Also want to thank SFPUC, I had a meeting
with them I think the 12th of January, very productive meeting regards to the
item we will be considering later on our agenda, and I met with Peter from SFMTA
and we went over some very interesting plans for different parts of the City,
and I thank him for taking the time, and I think we will be talking about those
in greater detail in the weeks and months that follow.

Commissioner Moore:

I would like to spend a
moment suggesting something to the Commissioners after receiving an e-mail
regarding CEQA training. CEQA training is, for me, personally, an issue which is
part of renewing my professional license. It takes time, but given or rendered
by the proper people, that allows me to get the professional credits, given the
organization that is doing it. While I am open for staff to give the training to
the Commissioners, I would like to suggest that we perhaps stepped it up so that
staff or a number of people who need the same training could get the credits
from outside organizations like the Association of Environmental Professionals
or the American Planning Association or the American Institute of Certified
Planners to give this lesson to the Commissioners with staff being present, so
that indeed, it is a win-win, for all of us who need to spend additional time.
I' m not getting any discussion about CEQA. I believe it is in flux as being
discussed that an outside organization might provide as training, which leaves
those issues in flux, and we can acknowledge them. I think it would be better
training, and it would help everybody in a broader way. That is just a
suggestion on my part. I' m not representing any professional group which is
doing this. I' m just suggesting taking a step further.

Commissioner Sugaya:
I believe it is in this current issue of the "Business Times" -- there is a
small article mentioning that there was a city study done that said that
ParkMerced was financially unfeasible. The problem with that paragraph’s little
note, was that it was not referenced. It did not say whether it was an official
City of San Francisco study or if it was done by someone independently or
whatever. It had no references or anything, so I do not know what they were
referring to. It made it sound like it was an independent study apart from the
project sponsor. Maybe staff could look into that.

·
Inquiries/Announcements.
Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or
inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).

·
Future Meetings/Agendas.
At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a
Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda
of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

7.
Director’s Announcements

None

8. Review
of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and
Historic Preservation Commission.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

For the Board hearings this week, Finance Committee met and discussed the
Rincon Hill and the Mission Financing district. You did consider it the enabling
legislation on July 22, 2010. You heard an ordinance that would create an area
plan infrastructure finance committee to advise the City on infrastructure
finance districts. You recommend approval knowing that it would be the first
pilot program proposed. You ask that the Board seek additional funding to extend
the pilot program to include it for the Eastern Neighborhood and ask that the
City include additional study on the long- term effects for the general plan.
The area plan infrastructure finance committee has been established. The
Planning Department is one of the members of the Committee and is committed to
ensuring that the concerns of the Commission are fairly considered. This week
was an informational hearing at the Land Use Committee, and no action was taken.
As far as the full Board, they did consider the appointment and reappointment of
members of the Preservation Commission. On Tuesday, the Board approved
appointments. All three members were approved. Also, there were a couple of
introductions I would like to mention. Supervisor Winner requested a hearing on
the impact of Historic Preservation policies on other major policy goals and the
need to adopt legislation to ensure that policies are achieved. Supervisor
Farrell introduce an amended ordinance to allow new restaurants not defined as
formula retail and to require the Planning Commission to consider date time
usage on the block when approving a new restaurant. Lastly, several supervisors
introduced a resolution opposing current proposed changes to the California
State budget to eliminate Redevelopment Agencies.

BOARD OF APPEALS:

As far as the Board of Appeals, Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez informed me
that although the Board met, they did not consider any items pertinent to your
Commission. Those are the only things I have to report for board of appeals.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION:

Last week, you did not get an update on the Historic Preservation Commission,
but this week, you will for the hearing that was held last week. Some items of
interest to this Commission would be their request for review and comment to
some resolution and findings recommended to approve nominations for the South
San Francisco Opera House, and 3232 Pacific Avenue, the Jillian Labor House.
Both of those motions were adopted. Finally, there was a request for
appropriateness to replace ground floor store fronts installing windows and
signs for the commercial tenant and civic center historic district. Those will
just the highlights of that hearing.

E.
GENERALPUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

At this time,
members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the
public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except
agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the
Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each
member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

None

F.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At
this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda
items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of
the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must
do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up
to three minutes.

CALAVERAS DAM REPLACEMENT PROJECT - Certification of the
Final Environmental Impact Report - The San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC) is proposing to implement the Calaveras Dam Replacement
Project (CDRP) to meet WSIP levels of service for delivery reliability, seismic
reliability and water quality. Since 2001, the SFPUC has operated Calaveras
Reservoir at a reduced capacity of approximately 38,100 acre-feet under order of
the California Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD)
due to seismic safety concerns. The replacement dam would be the same height as
the existing dam (completed in 1925) and would restore the capacity of Calaveras
Reservoir to its pre-2001 DSOD restricted level of 96,850 acre-feet. The CDRP is
located on Calaveras Creek in the Diablo Mountain Range in Alameda County,
approximately 12 miles south of the City of Pleasanton and 7.5 miles east of the
City of Fremont. Calaveras Reservoir straddles the border between Alameda and
Santa Clara Counties.

Preliminary
Recommendation: Certify the Environmental Impact Report

NOTE: The public hearing
on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on
December 21, 2009. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of
Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the
Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission
calendar.

1617 Polk Street
-
west side between Sacramento and Clay Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 0622
- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections
303 and 723.54 for a proposed Massage Establishment (d.b.a. Anjalee Thai
Massage). The project would establish seven massage treatment rooms and would
occupy approximately 1,110 gross square feet within the ground floor of the
subject building. The project is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial
District and the 65-A Height and Bulk District.

5495 CALIFORNIA STREET & 214-216 17th
AVENUE - southeast corner of
California Street and 17th Avenue; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 1417 -
Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code
Sections 303, 317, 710.11 and 710.39 to allow the demolition of a 2-story,
2-unit building and the construction of a 4-story, 3-unit building and to allow
the development of a lot greater than 4,999 sq. ft. in area within the
Neighborhood Commercial – Cluster District (NC-1) and 40-X Height and Bulk
District. The project also includes demolishing a rear portion of the commercial
buildings on the corner of California Street and 17th Avenue, subdividing the
5,088 sq. ft. subject lot into two lots, and constructing a vertical addition
(that will contain one residential unit) above the existing commercial building.

910 SILVER AVENUE
- south side between Amherst and Princeton Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block
5913 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application
No. 2010.0720.7023, proposing to construct a rear horizontal with a partial
vertical extension to the existing one-unit residential building within the RH-1
(Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk
District.

Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take
Discretionary Review and approve.

226 CABRILLO STREET
- north side between 3rd and 4th Avenues; Lot 026 in
Assessor’s Block 1641- Request for
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.12.18.3526,
proposing to demolish a one-story, one-unit building within the RH-2
(Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk
District.

Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

226 CABRILLO STREET
- north side between 3rd and 4th Avenues; Lot 026 in
Assessor’s Block 1641- Request for
Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.12.18.3527,
proposing to construct a three-story two-unit building within the RH-2
(Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk
District.

Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

1350 5TH AVENUE
- east side between Irving Street and Parnassus Avenue; Lot 034 in Assessor's
Block 1759 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit
Application No. 2009.08.09.8339, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal
addition at the rear of a two-story over garage, single-family residential
building within the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and
40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review

Preliminary
recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

518 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
- west side between 20th and 22nd Streets; Lot 004 in
Assessor’s Block 4103 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building
Permit Application No. 2010.04.30.1452, proposing to add a 3rd floor
with a 15-foot front setback and 3-story rear addition to the existing
single-family home, within the RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning
District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff
Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and
approve

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and
approved

AYES: Antonini, Borden, Moore,
Miguel, Olague, Sugaya

ABSENT:
Fong

DRA: 191

I.PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of
the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that
are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda
items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission
will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception.
When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which
members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the
public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised
during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public
may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a
commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted
agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public
comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding
to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting
staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3)directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code
Section 54954.2(a))

Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Commission or Department. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Department's website or in other public documents.